Posted by swamphawk22 on 2/7/2013 8:40:00 PM (view original):1 you are right..I meant isnt. Had 2 thoughts and deleted part of it and the tense changed and I missed it.

2 Hard question. Some things...

A. There would have been more support for Monarchys.
B. England would have had more power over the world.
C. The idea of freedom that eventually led to a Democratic Europe would have been delayed.

Hard to make more specific ideas.

Would Communism come to Russia? Would Hitler rise to power?

Eventually there would be a major war between the ideas of Democratic values against tyranny and tyranny might have won because there would be no US to aid them.

1. What evidence do you have that their would have been more support for monarchies? In what ways does the existence of the US raise or lower support for monarchy? The Enlightenment, a European intellectual movement, would still have been in place. It was French support of the US that caused the financial crisis in France that led to their revolution. French intellectuals were already looking at the more liberal English constitutional monarchy and parliament anyway. Changes would have enventually come with or without the US. One might even argue that with the US as a emigration destination for those discontent with life in Europe that the US helped delay reform and democracy as the agents for change simply left Europe.

2. England already had as much power as the could handle. The English method of controlling the colonies was nothing like their method of ruling the rest of the Empire. Technology and logistics were what they were. If anything, continued control over North America would have limited Britain's ability to control other places.

3. More of your nonsense regarding freedom. You continually bash Socialist Europe, but now you want to trot out Democratic Europe? wtf?

You have no idea what other cultures value; you are just a zealot for your black and white, nut-job, right-wing (not conservative) world view.

And on the eighth day God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need someone who can flip this for a quick buck.”

So God made a banker.

God said, “I need someone who doesn’t grow anything or make anything but who will borrow money from the public at 0% interest and then lend it back to the public at 2% or 5% or 10% and pay himself a bonus for doing so.”

So God made a banker.

God said, “I need someone who will take money from the people who work and save, and use that money to create a dotcom bubble and a housing bubble and a stock bubble and an oil bubble and a commodities bubble and a bond bubble and another stock bubble, and then sell it to people in Poughkeepsie and Spokane and Bakersfield, and pay himself another bonus.”

So God made a banker.

God said, “I need someone to build homes in the swamps and deserts using shoddy materials and other people’s money, and then use these homes as collateral for a Ponzi scheme he can sell to pensioners in California and Michigan and Sweden. I need someone who will then foreclose on those homes, kick out the occupants, and switch off the air conditioning and the plumbing, and watch the houses turn back into dirt. And then pay himself another bonus.”

God said, “I need someone to lend money to people with bad credit at 30% interest in order to get his stock price up, and then, just before the loans turn bad, cash out his stock and walk away. And who, when asked later, will, with a tearful eye, say the government made him do it.”

God said, “And I need somebody who will tell everyone else to stand on their own two feet, but who will then run to the government for a bailout as soon as he gets into trouble — and who will then use that bailout money to help elect a Congress that will look the other way. And then pay himself another bonus.”